"Rules" of war.

[Negachrist]

Why do we have so-called "rules" of war in our society?

Surely the object of war is to destroy your enemy, totally and utterly. Imposing self-restrictive rules on this act is counter-productive.

Either you want to win, or you want to "play fair". If you want to play fair then play a game a sport, do not engage in a war where you will intentionally limit your potential for success.

The whole concept of having rules in an activity where your goal is the complete annihilation of those who declare themselves your enemy, is ridiculous.

[McCulloch]

Why do we have so-called "rules" of war in our society?

Perhaps in recognition that war has survivors (so far) and that society must rebuild after war.

Surely the object of war is to destroy your enemy, totally and utterly. Imposing self-restrictive rules on this act is counter-productive.

That is seldom the object of war. Wars are fought to gain power, territory, resources or to curb others from doing the same.

The whole concept of having rules in an activity where your goal is the complete annihilation of those who declare themselves your enemy, is ridiculous.

True. We have collectively learned that complete annihilation of our enemies is not a desirable or achievable goal.

[Negachrist]

True. We have collectively learned that complete annihilation of our enemies is not a desirable or achievable goal.

Not desirable? How is not having any enemies left, not desirable?

[McCulloch]

True. We have collectively learned that complete annihilation of our enemies is not a desirable or achievable goal.

Not desirable? How is not having any enemies left, not desirable?

At what cost?

[Negachrist]

True. We have collectively learned that complete annihilation of our enemies is not a desirable or achievable goal.

Not desirable? How is not having any enemies left, not desirable?

At what cost?

Cost? It's war. If your enemies didn't want to be utterly eradicated from the face of the planet then they shouldn't have declared war on you.

[McCulloch]

Cost? It's war. If your enemies didn't want to be utterly eradicated from the face of the planet then they shouldn't have declared war on you.

So then one rule of war is that you should not be the one to initiate it?

[Negachrist]

Cost? It's war. If your enemies didn't want to be utterly eradicated from the face of the planet then they shouldn't have declared war on you.

So then one rule of war is that you should not be the one to initiate it?

Well THAT goes without saying!

[McCulloch]

If your enemies didn't want to be utterly eradicated from the face of the planet then they shouldn't have declared war on you.

So then one rule of war is that you should not be the one to initiate it?

Well THAT goes without saying!

Not really. Are there any other rules you have overlooked? Ethical treatment of non-combatants. Respect of neutral parties. Honoring truces and negotiated cease-fires.

[Quixotic]

This is a somewhat absurd exchange.

The whole concept of having rules in an activity where your goal is the complete annihilation of those who declare themselves your enemy, is ridiculous.

This is simply not true. The goals of war can be many fold. For example, survival, resources, riches, land women, power, freeing others from oppression. War is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Why do we have so-called "rules" of war in our society?

Surely the object of war is to destroy your enemy, totally and utterly. Imposing self-restrictive rules on this act is counter-productive.

Again this is begging the question, you are supposing something then answering it. If the object of war was (which it nearly always isn't) then yes having restrictions does not make sense. But this is as far as I am aware never the case, I can't think of (maybe you can) an example where 'object of war is to destroy your enemy, totally and utterly' has not been carried out by self imposed limits.

Either you want to win, or you want to "play fair". If you want to play fair then play a game a sport, do not engage in a war where you will intentionally limit your potential for success.

Again this is not true. Winning a full blown war only has to render your opponent unable or unwilling to fight back.

Also if you really pull the stops out you may end up harming the very thing you are trying to achieve. For example if you wanted to increase the size of your territory, nuking your enemy would not achieve this.

In the cases where you are at war to protect another group of people i.e. NATO intervention in Kosovo, it important to limit yourself to avoid killing those your are trying to protect.

Again for example in Iraq it is in the interest of the western forces to be as accurate as possible in only killing those who are oppressing the rest of the populace, mistakes which have been made have extended the war and made it more difficult to achieve its objectives.

Also you have to think about the opinions of the rest of the world, if Iran for example dropped a single bomb on the UK, Nuking Tehran would be seen as a grossly disproportionate response. The consequences for the UK from the rest of the world would be MUCH more severe than the single bomb.

There is also the problem of escalation, what starts out as a simple argument could end up meaning the annihilation of both sides.

Cost? It's war. If your enemies didn't want to be utterly eradicated from the face of the planet then they shouldn't have declared war on you.

This is an incredibly simplistic view of the world. It is somewhat analogous to a real time strategy game. However in the real world there are often millions of people on each 'side' often will all have differing view points. If the leaders in our country declared war on another one, even though you totally disagree with it would you be happy to accept your own statement? Would you graciously accept annihilation. Or do you think that would be unfair?

There are rules of engagement for many reasons only some of which have been outlined above, total war is only the last resort when someone else has declared it on you. We have rules because it is better for us to restrict our selves in many situations. It is also a good sign that we are better than our enemy. The killing of innocent oppressed civilians who have just as much gripe with the military as you do is abhorrent and totally unjustifiable.

[Wyvern]

Why do we have so-called "rules" of war in our society?

Surely the object of war is to destroy your enemy, totally and utterly. Imposing self-restrictive rules on this act is counter-productive.

Either you want to win, or you want to "play fair". If you want to play fair then play a game a sport, do not engage in a war where you will intentionally limit your potential for success.

The whole concept of having rules in an activity where your goal is the complete annihilation of those who declare themselves your enemy, is ridiculous.

Warfare has rules not in order to play fair but in order to be waged relatively humanely. Think of the rules of war as being an adjunct to the golden rule, you do not want your people to die horribly painful gruesome deaths, so you make an agreement with your opponent not to use weapons specifically designed to do so. WWI demonstrated just how nasty a war can get without rules.

It should also be noted that your concepts are a bit confused, the name for the activity whose goal is the complete annihilation of another group is not war, it is genocide.